would you sell your soul...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unofficial Newcastle United Football Club BBS : One Thread

to return to "the entertainers" where we could only win shoot-outs and any team with a semi-decent back line was bound to beat us?

How many games do we think we can win 4-3????

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Answers

APpocalypse now.....

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

sparxx,

If you mean - would I care to return to the 3-4 year "unsuccesful" period when we played the most wonderful entertaining football and you went to SJP for every single game with a tingle of excitement for what you knew would be on display, as distinct from the other 35 "unsuccessful" years I've been watching them - the answer is a resounding YES.

I'm afraid have no other Toon yardstick with which to measure things.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002


Sparxx, mistakes were made back then but in none of our supporting lifetimes have we looked more likely to win anything and we had marvellous fun on the way. As I keep saying to the Makems who may mock: it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. End of story.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Sparxx, not wishing to be rude but were you actually lucky enough to see that many KK games live at SJP? It just staggers me that you can be so critical if you were.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Trouble is,, it WAS great at the time but we actually thought we WOULD win something and we very nearly did! Now we have the advantage of hindsight and so it's easy to look back with some negativity.

I wouldn't want the same outcome but I would take the standard of players we had then and the way in which we would have other teams quaking in their boots at the thought of playing us.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002



There's a line from a song that goes..........'If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor'

Sums it up really. We saw a great team and now nothing measures up. Difficult to settle for mediocrity.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002


The painfull truth is that we were a team of overachievers, where everything came together most games. We had some great players in Ginola, Sirles, Cole, Shearer and Beardsley. These players dragged everyone else along with them. Peacock, Howey, Barton,Clark, Watson, Elliott and Pavel were all good players that were made to look much better than they actually were.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

I've said it before, and I really, genuinely mean this - I could watch that team of KK's every season until I kick my clogs, and if we never won nowt I'd die a happy man. They were simply joyous to watch.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

if we could have a defence that conceded less than a goal a game, as we had then, then i'd be happy :0)

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Those that know, and I go back 32 years of actively supporting the toon, know why I have come to hate that man so much....so much promise, so much awe, simply magic....and he ends up a quitter. The hard part was that he did it the first time as a player, and we said good on son, ye had a great career and ye took us back to division one. We'll find a way to sort it out. We didn't and we nearly died because of it.

Oh, only to be a bride again when he said there was only ever one team I'd come back too, and it was us!!!!! This time as manager...The feeling, that incredible feeling of magic all over again!

Only to quit....AGAIN!!!!

No, I have only been blessed to be at SJP once in my life many years ago. Lord knows that when me son is old enough I shall bring him "back home" so that he knows how important it is.

As for the entertainment value, I'll go to me grave never having seen better. I only wish KK hadn't said (about Ginola) ...if he delivers the goods going forward, we can live with the other half. That'll take care of itself. No it didn't and no we couldn't, and deep down he knew it.

It is my honest belief that without a MASTER center half and two world class fullbacks, we will never be champions. That commanding force. That fear factor, intimidation. Wright had it, Adams had it...Stam had it... we have NEVER had it and until we do we will entertain, oh we will be glorious. But will we win anything? Can we win anything? It's the difference between a house made of mortar and one made of hay.....

Entertain....yes entertain.... but memories should be lined in silver, not 5-0's.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002



Valid points Sparxx. He appears to be sorting out Man City, but are they likely to take over our bridesmaid's crown ? I'm not sure I'd want that to happen, not for their sake but for his, although it would be a right p1sser if he took them to where he chickened out of taking us.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

I'd take KK back in a shot - aside from the glorious, thrilling football we played you've got to bear in mind that if we'd been relegated we might never have recovered. Look at Stoke, Wolves, Birmingham, Forest - the clubs that have missed out on premiership football over the last decade or so are years behind the ones that made it. Problem with branding Keegan a failure is that you're also branding every single current manager a failure apart from Ferguson and Wenger. Cups aside (and I'm discouting the Worthless) none of them have a pot to their name, they can't all be losers. And we've had to supposedly winning managers since KK and I think we can all agree that his teams were miles better in every respect than theirs. Keegan for manager with Shearer as assistant when Uncle Bobby calls it a day!!

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

I think you are wrong there AL, there are other managers who have wone things, maybe not in the current EPL, but certainly on the olds Ist div and of course foreign leagues.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Those that know, ... know why I have come to hate that man so much....so much promise, so much awe, simply magic....and he ends up a quitter

We might know but I doubt if any of us understand. Quitting, as he did, tarnishes the legend a tad but he remains a legend as a player and as a manager. You seem critical of him resigning as a player. Surely that is his choice. He knows when his edge has gone, when he can't run past people as he once did - many top players wish to retire at their best and not become shadows of their former selves.

And as a manager, he resigned because he said he felt he could take us no further. I happen to believe he was wrong but that will never be known. But I would, as the thread title suggests, "sell my soul" in exchange for his successor realising his limitations and resigning when he had so clearly cocked things up. If TSM had shown a fraction of KK's integrity and resigned when he should have done, we would not have been in the wilderness for the last 5 years.

KK took us to 2nd in the PL, a position not achieved in the previous 70 years. On the final day of the season, we shouted the lads on knowing we might be champions come 5 o clock. It was not to be but none of us, none of us has ever been in such a situation before (or since). You can look back and point to one or two refereeing decisions or strokes of bad luck which would have won the title for us had things gone the other way.

How many matches did Ginola win with his genius? How many points did he lose by not tracking back? I suspect that the balance is heavily in his favour, and as Macbeth points out above, we've never had such a good defensive record as we had under KK.

To be critical of such a manager might merit some attention. Hatred of such a manager is perverse in the extreme.



-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

A while back I was watching a documentary on Richard Branson and was struck by the parallells with Keegans managerial career. Branson had a flair for building up a business from nowt but when it came to keeping it going on a day to day basis he was found wanting. When questioned about this he agreed saying the excitement of creating a success from scratch was so much more attractive than trying to control the monster once it was at the top.

I'm paraphrasing wildly but I always felt the most joyous Keegan years were the promotion season and the first year in the PL. Once he started to spend serious money and the pressure was on he was never so keen. Some say he bought success but in that first season in the top flight we came 3rd mainly due to a certain Arsenal reject bought from Bristol City, an "ageing and past it" Beardsley and Salty Sellars, a "failure" from Leeds. The major spending came later and we went from being no-hoper gatecrashers to serious contenders. Not nearly as much fun.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002



sparxx,

Get yersell away from that idyllic climate, and ower here for a game or two man - you know it makes sense. ;-{]

With regard to your assessment of KK as a "quitter", that is very harsh and emotive word. It is also one that is a crude catch-all covering the complex circumstances that lead to a particular situation.

As I think you know, I admire the man immensely - however, my initial rection when he resigned as England Manager was that he had let the country down by leaving so precipitiously. Upon reflection, I felt he showed great moral fortitude in doing so, and was absolutely right.

You might like to read my thoughts on his "quitting" from SJP on the "Reflections" thread in response to Derek Whiteside's question as to why he left the Toon.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


Jonno... as I said the first time he quit/retired we knew his best days were beyond him and all of us accepted the fact. I'm sure he felt that getting us to the old Div. One was good enough and that as a big club we'd survive. Turn the clock seven years forward and our promise turns to horrible failure and our shining knight returns, this time promising to take us back to the top. Telling us that this is "THE ONLY JOB HE EVER WANTED"

My hatred is perverse and extreme??? You then question my love for the club itself. I can not and will not accept the fact that Keegan didn't have alterior motives. The club was about to turn into a PLC, his player funding was going to be drastically cut. He threatened to quit if we went to a PLC and he did just that. He destroyed the reserve system, and even though he had a team that was ready to win now, he had no plan for the future. He feared that he'd end up taking the heat that was eventually given to his successors, TSM and the Rude one, for organizational tactics he was solely responsible for. To have so much promise and magic and to take us to the top only for him to say he's taken us as far as he can??? Do you really HONESTLY believe that???

I wonder who really is the perverse one?

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


But you only had to look at him when he resigned to see he'd lost it.

He could have stayed on, but as mentioned elsewhere he is a builder of new teams, a person who gets the buzz from the chase, not from the steadiness, and grind of day to day sameness. It was easy to get a buzz from signing better and better players, and seeing a step change in team performance, he didn't seem to like the incremental change that comes next.

I belive he felt he let us down badly by not winning the league and really couldn't cope with the internal pressue he put on himself through that. He always drove himself hard and he stopped as a player when he saw he wasn't good enough for the top division. I think he felt after spending all that money, taking us so close, and missing out, that he may not have been good enough as a manager. He decided to stop. He didn't have 100% board backing cos they were distracted into becoming a PLC, so that wouldn't have helped.

The reserve thing is a red herring. One season we played without a reserve side, don't see it stopping Brayson and his pals from coming through.

Keegan left England again cos he felt he wsn't good enough. Which other person has ever done that. Up here Craig Brown had completely lost the plot but battled on, cos his ego was so big. Keegan lives off his confidence and yet has the ablity to see when to stop. To me that is a wonderful thing to be able to do. There are always other people out there who may be as good as you, you just happen to be the person in the role atthe moment. Will Newcastle ever have a manager as good as Bobby Robson ? Will we ever have a monarch like QE2, will Man U ever have a manager as great as Busby. Time goes on and the unthinkable happens. I felt Keegan saw he wasn't bigger than the club, he should move out, and let someone else take us that last little step we needed to take. So he was wrong there !!

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


you give the man too much credit MacBeth, honestly, and I'm not ever going to discredit what he did for us, and as you say more importantly what he could have done.

If you are going to be married and do all the planning and send the invitations and get all dressed only to come close to the day and walk away...shouldn't someone be pissed off?

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


You then question my love for the club itself

I haven't said that at all and I don't know where you get that idea from Sparxx. I've just expressed amazement that anyone would hate our most successful mamager.

If you are going to be married and do all the planning and send the invitations and get all dressed only to come close to the day and walk away...shouldn't someone be pissed off? Your potential spouse may well be pissed off in the short term - BUT - if you can suddenly see that you will be unable to deliver the relationship your partner wants, then quitting is the right thing (indeed the ONLY honourable thing) to do and will save both of you being pissed off in the long term. And hatred on either side would be sorely out of place.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

the wedding analogy is a worrying one, if you've planned and planned and then you realise the partner is the wrong one is best just to carry on regardless ?

Should he have stayed as England manager then ?

The success (for us) of the 92-97 period has to have come from the Hall/Keegan managerial parnership. Hall built the financial side of the club up from nothing, or worse, which allowed us to be able to spend a million pounds on Andy Cole and the rest that followed. Keegan has to be given the plaudits for the team side of things. Other teams have tried to buy success and got no where near where we did. (Dalglish at Blackburn was the closest and probably won the thing as closely as we lost it, a 'luck' thing).

If Keegan wasn't responsible for the team side of things who was ? He appointed the back room staff, signed the players, sold the players, picked the team, MUST be his responsibility, for both the highs and the lows.

If he had stayed and taken us down to 13th for a couple of years and then been sacked would you have thought better of him ? If Bobby Robson had agreed to leave Barca and taken over then and we'd stayed in the top 5, or even won it, would you have thought more of Keegan ?

He did leave, but as Clarky says 'quitter' just sounds like he had no bottle for the fight and taking us fmo bottom of the second division to finish 2nd in the top flight must have involved some fighting.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


Jonno - I believe my analogy here was probably wrong so I'll retract that as it really was a silly comparison. I also realise that you understand where I'm coming from on this. We've crossed swords on the matter before. As I have said. I will credit the man for what he did. No one else could have captured the hearts of the fans the way he did. His status as a legend among us will always be safe. The football was akin to nothing we had ever seen before, and we may never see it again.

Ultimately his actions speak for themselves. I need not explain any more how I look at the end result and find it totally unfullfilling. You may languish in the memories of the football, I will languish in the doldrums of what was left undone. You can be satisfied with being "entertained", I will satisfy myself with the need for silverware, and the fact is I'd take silver and being the least entertaining team in the world (aka 2001 Liverpool). Anything less is just entertainment.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


"I'd take silver and being the least entertaining team in the world".

That phrase encapsulates the philosophical difference in this debate sparxx, and I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with you more on that score.

Personal choice, of course, but imo the game is all about entertainment - that's why I go. If 'winning' exclusively meant playing sh*te, boring football then could put it in your pipe and smoke it as far as I'm concerned!

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


Agree with Clarky, got to go now :)

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

nothing boring about winning cups and championships I'm afraid. I just stated that I would accept boring footie if it brought in silverware.... I'm sure most of the scouser scum don't think for half a second they play boring football, and how many trophies have they got the past eighteen months? Nuff said!!!!

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

The "Scouser Scum" must realise they play boring football.

Why else would their attendances be falling?

Pundits have brought out the old cliche about "a good team can win and play badly" after nearly every Liverpool game.

Obviously it's a personal opinion and for every fan who wants entertainment another will want trophies.

A trophy is just an object, you celebrate a bit more at the end of the season but are bored out of your mind during the season.

Man Utd fans don't give a flying f**k about trophies as they've won most of them already. They want entertainment, as well as sandwiches with little pink things in them.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


As I said sparxx, this is entirely a matter of personal preference.

Personally, I go to 19 home games, several Cup ties, several away games and several Reserve games every season primarily to be entertained; winning trophies is an essentially different matter that would result from playing entertaining football that was good enough to win a lot of games, consistently and over a prolonged period.

Your outlook is very much the American philosophy that says "winning is everything". That just happens not to be a philosophy I subscribe to. You'll just have to trust me that there is indeed an alternative philosophy to yours that can also create enjoyment and satisfaction, if not the total fulfillment that is associated with the physical and permanent manifestation of team success ie. a trophy.

My point is that these different manifestations of playing entertaining football can co-exist - they are not mutually exclusive.

I would simply not support a philosophy that ascribed to doing anything, adopting any style or means - however boring, unattractive or otherwise un-entertaining - simply to win a trophy. I actually believe this view would be supported by the majority of Toon fans - despite countless years of lack of success as you define it.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


I'm sorry Clarky, and Paul, I must disagree. Yes people get different things from it but I can not treat watching NUFC as if I'm watching just another good movie. The passion does not end after ninety minutes.

Seriously....IMHO, these opinions I'm getting is saying... it's ok to lose as long as we look good... WHAT?????

I'm stunned...have ye become so complacent as to say, well we haven't won anything in thirty years it's ok!!!! No it's not ok....

Unacceptable! Do you think for a minute SJH paid millions for a team who would simply play lovely footie? The cupboard is bare folks, we play the game to win, we hate to lose (personally I get so messed up it's best to steer clear of me for a few hours) and ultimately that has to mean cups trophies or championships. Managers are hired not to provide entertainment, but to win. Anything less is NOT acceptable.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


sparxx marra - you are free to disagree, because you have a view. It happens to be different to mine. That's cool.

All I'm trying to say is that HOW we play is very important to me. Of course, I hate losing, but would not want us to adopt a deeply unattractive style purely to put a trophy in the cabinet, because fundemantally this is entertainment, and I want to be entertained. If we are to win a trophy, I would prefer us to win it with style and be entertained along the way.

Without entertainment value, imho football would be an entirely meaningless exercise. This is my view - you are very welcome to yours.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


This is turning into quite the debate, isn't it?? Both sides of the argument are full of valid points, on the one hand we want to be entertained on the other we want some silverware. Who would argue that the keegan years were not at the very least exciting??? But, also who would say after winning some silerware "yeah we won the premiership, but it was so boring, I don't think I'll renew my season ticket"

Clarky, this week you said that Manure were efficient...personally I thought they were pedestrian in their approach to the game. Yet they still managed to score three goals. Aren't efficient and boring bedfellows?? Look at the Italian league very effective, efficient football......boring (imho)Technically superior to other european teams,yes, more entertaining, no.

With the middle of the fence right between me arse cheeks I have to say I think there needs to be a balance between entertaining football and boring football. what would I choose? Sunderland and boro getting relegated...........that's just like winning something isn't it??

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


Howay Syme...just make sure that you don't enjoy too much that fence lodged between yer cheeks!!!!

I'm sure that whenever I do make it across the pond, We'll have to have several pints to further discuss the point. I am hopefull that me son might just be interested enough to warrant a trip over sometime next season.

The one important thing here is the love of the toon army. Attractive football, Keegan whatever differences of opinion there are the one important thing is always... the love of the toon army

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


"Man Utd fans don't give a flying f**k about trophies as they've won most of them already". I disagree mate, they (Manure) may be used to winning but they must maintain it; why would they continually spend all that money and use underhand tactics to lure players and attract ever more 'fans'. After their success of the 90's (esp.) don't you think the next 'generation' of 'supporters' would like (expect) to see trophies and be able to sing. "Glory, Glory ManUre etc, etc."?

Bridesmaids and entertainers don't go down in the record books I'm afraid. Everyone loves a winner, hence the 'glory hunters'.

I especially feel for the people of the North East and I personally believe THEY deserve to see some silverware.

For me, there's nothing worse than being teased and titillated (at a physical and financial cost!) only to miss out on the "climax" / trophies :-(

A (slightly) different analogy.

;7)

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002


The New Year gets off to a flying start with a re-run of the very popular `Keegan Debate` , now slowly catching up with `The Great Escape` in terms of repeats . For the benifet of new viewers this is a hardy annual , I have fought out of the same corner as Sparxx in the past and will continue to do so, I fully understand Jonno`s opinion, respect him for his outlook. I have discovered on another thread the main difference between the `Main Camp` team and the dwindling few in the trenches so to speak

FA Cup 3rd Round and the majority of the `We wuz entertained crowd` appear not to give a jot about the game, the winning of, playing of, and praying that Bobby rests some of his key players!!!!! This in a squad in which all have said is not of the strongest, arrogantly they then talk of a Champions League place as being more important, what utter bollox, what is more important than winning your next game , especially after two reversals, by playing your best team availible, how can anyone look ahead to the end of the season and plan that by not concentrating on Cup will enhance our chances of CL place beats me. Success begats Success.

Silverware, Silverware, dont mention it on here Sparxx, very few understand what it is , any footballer joining a club wants to win medals, pots,caps and receive a good wedge,as far as I know that has never changed, I would say Haman moved on cos he could not forsee any s.......e at Newcastle, has something to show his bairns now eh!, in a couple of years playing so called unentertaining football. Bobby say`s "Lose with Dignity", fair enuff, but I say "Win" and it does not have to be with style, that will come naturally with development,and its so easier when you have actually won something .

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002


I desperately want to win something. Losing hurts. BUT if you don't win, and 19 out of 20 teams inthe Premiership won't win the title this year, then I want to be entertained.

Compare the Keegan first two years in the Premiership with Reid's. We finished 3rd and 6th (I think). They finished 7th twice. Comparable performances really. Neither side won anything but who would you rather watch, and I suspect even Sunderland supporters may prefer watching a team led by the guile of Peter Beardsley and Scott Sellars to one led by the guile of Gray and Schwarz.

As Buff so rightly says this is an oft returned to thread. Something not yet re-aired has been the comment about people travelling a distance to a game v locals going. If you're local you go and return home, via the pub, but happily indoors by six o'clock if you want, back to the mundane world that football aloows you to escape from. If you travel then you have three hours (it is for me) to contemplate your navel and think about what you have seen. Driving through the wilds of Northumberland there is little else to do. If we have won then there is a foundation of pleasure, and the game can be analysed with that assurance that we were better than the oposition. If we lost then the foundation is one of despair, and the analysis is one of trying to find crumbs of comfort, like 'did we play well'. If we have won and entertained then the whole thing is joyous. If we have not won but have entertained then the downside is not as bad.

Peter Reid has survived at Sunderland on results alone. The football has been dire, but while his side was winning no one could have a go, cos he could say his way worked.

I am not talking about picking a side with 10 forwards to entertain me, it isn't as simple as that, just as I'm sure those who desire results first and foremost don't view us as starting every game with a point that needs defended at all costs. The balance needs to be there and what started this debate was a question around a return to a 4-3 mentality. The only thing wrong with a 4-3 mentality is that too often we were the 3. No one, but no one complains when we score 4 at Leeds, or 4 at home to Man U, the only concern is only scoring 3 at Liverpool, not 4.

I want us to have a Seaman/Dixon/Winterburn/Adams/Koewn defence, I would be so proud of that. I don't see why that has to stop you having a Gillespie/Beardsley/Shearer/Ferdinand/Ginola or Solano/Bellamy/Dyer/Shearer/Robert forward line. I want to be entertained by forwards who play exciting football, I want to be entertained by defenders who are tight fisted, mean spirited, hard bastards. I want to win, but I recognise that 95% of teams in the Premiership won't win the title, and 98.5% of teams inthe Cup today won't win the competition.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002


In answer to the very first question.......well, I guess I have sold my soul. It cost me £392 (plus "ancilliaries") for home games and likely more than that for aways, not to mention the countless hours in the cockpit of the Stealth Astra (©). If I was to sit on my @rse 3000 miles away (or even a couple of hundred up in Scotland), I might have a different opinion. No disrespect here guys, but I simply have a different perspective. If I lash out that amount (and many lash out even more), I expect a modicum of entertainment.

But it ain't so easy as that. If I don't like it, I guess I could go to the Silverlink Multiscreen Thingie or even join the hoards of Plastic Mancs who make regular pilgrimages to OT for my entertainment, or simply save loadsamoney and watch constant re-runs of Howay 5-0. Footy is in my blood, put there by my dad in a moment of passion up in the Lake District (so me Ma tells me). I guess I could do something worse and sit at home and "support" my team (again, no disrespect to those who can't get to the games). But it is the marriage of supporting your local team (or whichever took your fancy all those years ago) and wanting to be entertained.

As Mac just pointed out, only one team per season can win any single trophy. Qualification for a major European competition is a consolation prize, but one which can also lead to yet more entertainment (as well as additional income for the club). Playing entertaining football is an (almost) assured way of achieving the latter now that 4 can qualify for the ECL and a few more for UEFA. Right now, I'd settle for that.

As for the second question. A few more than we have this season (ManUre at home and Leeds away and probably Brentford in the Worthy). I'd settle for another 4-3 win next weekend and again at Anfield. With that sort of result, we'd have enough confidence to beat the majority of the other teams this season ;-)

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002


About the Man Utd comment: I meant more the glory seekers, who count the trophies of one club and compare them with the trophies of another before deciding who to support next.

I still stay firmly in the entertainment corner. I much prefer going home with a beaming smile on my face after a great win than a nervous disposition after scraping through a 1-0 win.

My mate is a good Liverpool fan (ie he has been all his life, he was born there etc.) and he said that most Liverpool fans have made far too much of their trophy wins. He still says that they should never have won the FA Cup - it was basically Michael Owen that won the cup. He feels lucky to have won the UEFA and reckons Liverpool's midfield is the weakest out of them, Man Utd, Arsenal, Leeds and Chelsea.

His point is that he would rather look back with fond memories of a great game than a 0-0 draw with Barcelona.

I completely agree with Macbeth in that the entertainment part is down to attackers. The team can be built on a solid - perhaps boring - defence but still entertain. Obviously these defenders have to be good and be able to pass but it's primarily down to the attackers.

Obviously we all want to win things, but I honestly want entertainment first.

Kenny Dalglish could have brought us our first trophy in donkey's years if we'd had a slice of luck - Shearer not hitting the post etc. - in the cup final. Would this make Dalglish's team preferable to Keegan's?

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002


In order to look at the importance of this we have to say to ourselves how do we measure up against other teams and areas of comparable size? The role of professional sports in society is, yes, first and foremost to provide a medium of distraction for everyday life (ie entertainment).

Football in it's history has and still does that...entertain...so what then? If you travelled four hours to London to watch a play or a concert, is the effect the same? No it's not. You can walk out of a play/movie or concert and having been entertained consider whether it was really worth the four hour trip. I would not do that coming from a Newcastle match because that is a labor of love and passion. If god had graced me with the ability to do so I'd be a ST holder for damn sure.

Football, I believe is more than just entertainment. It is a representative of the people and more importantly the area from which it is played. I was entertained in us losing to Manure on Wednesday, but gutted that we lost. We played some good football and a break here or there could have made a difference.

So when people ask "who do you support" and we say Newcastle United, we say that meaning that there is only ONE UNITED and it's us!!!! A Manc or scouser looks at us and says we're simply wannabe's. Right now...yes we are.

So what separates us from them? Money, yes....but more importantly than that is the ability to win consistently, and the evidence of that is not finishing second or sixth, because only we will remember that. But when someone asks who won the League or Cup in 1996 or whenever, they sure as hell don't care who finished second or sixth.

It is so easy to become just satisfied with maintaining our premiership status. But God knows I don't want to be Coventry or Southampton who spend 30 years in the top league and win one or two cups. I want the football team that represents the people of Newcastle and their supporters to be better than the rest ...all the time... and can not look at finishing second or sixth as a success if we do not have the silver to back it up!!!! So what, if we qualify for Europe and get knocked out in an early round by an away goal. Who the hell cares about that? What does that say about our second place finish the year before?

I truly admire those of you who make the most out of going to see the lads. To travel great distances to support the lads is awesome!!! You deserve medals for being so supportive!! The last time I saw them live was almost twenty years ago when they came here with Forest and put on an exhibition match.

The fact is, I want to be entertained, sure... everyone does. But I want success and evidence of it. I don't want to be just a wannabe. It's ok to be a good football team. But what really separates us from them is the silverware...it is the only TRUE measurement of success in professional sports.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002


sorry about the italics... getting a tad emotional here!!!

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

in answer to the originak question: would you sell your soul?

no, but i'd sell Marcelino.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002


no italics anymore

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

maybe

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

It is obvious from this thread that we all want:

a) Entertainment

b) Trophies

Which order they come down to is a matter of personal opinion.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002


Ok Paul , we have had the marriage and sex comparisions , ditching the managers and partially in answer to Mac`s wry comments in his match report I shall attempt to give you my anolgy, these are based on facts not pipe-dreams, Though many decry I will start close to home -:

1. Celtic for two years under Tommy Burns produced some of the most inventive,cavalier,entertaining football it has been my pleasure to witness, DeCanio, Cadette etc, THEY WON NOTHING - 2ND BEST

2. Martin O Neil has cut out the frills and I guess at the back they are the most physical, intimidating teams in the UK. They still posess a measure of skill but they let the fancy dans from Holland playing for Rangers tip tap around, a role reversal as it were.

3. They are heading for two in a row , their supporters love it,they love being top,played well in CL also.

4. Arsenal I really admire as a team, they as well as being a joy to watch have developed that ruthless streak which is a major part of winning games. Go back to the George Graham era where the main chant from envious fans was "Lucky Arsenal" or "Boring Boring"-: on the way to winning the double, their fan base did not drop,they were happy little WINNERS.

5. When Liverpool were conquering Europe playing a brand of football which was both efficient and entertaining everyone had a soft spot for them. They are now striving to regain that position by imho playing dour, effective football, suitable to their current staff and the Premiership. Goal will be to get into CL , regroup, the club is more attractive to the quality players, let`s get some flair into the squad. THE FOUNDATIONS HAVE BEEN LAID TO LAST.

6. I could go on at club level, I like to watch West Ham, but....? Int level Brazil of the late 50`s and 60`s, teams were so feared of them, even watching them run out onto the pitch was exciting, other teams caught them up and now a semi decent East European team with a degree of discipline and a good work rate will push them all the way.

To finish, with most clubs,and due to the nature of the present game success is cyclic, I ask the question why for hells sake are the Toon not riding that bike or are we happy enough to dish out water as the main riders speed by. A few years of entertainment is not enuff, I will never give up hope that Newcastle will rise again, to thrill all with entertaining football, not be easy cos YBR is still working on the foundations.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002


My only contribution so far has been to query hatred for our most successful manager, so I'll now comment on the entertainment vs silverware debate.

In truth, I don't understand the question. The "vs" above is usually an "and". I think a majority of sides who win are more or less entertaining on the whole. Some are supremely exciting (Brazil 1970 etc).

When TSM arrived he took away the entertainment AND the success. So we had the worst of all worlds - boring and losing.

Kenny Dalglish could have brought us our first trophy in donkey's years if we'd had a slice of luck - Shearer not hitting the post etc. - in the cup final. Would this make Dalglish's team preferable to Keegan's?

The KD team had huge slices of luck in that competition. How many teams have reached a final by playing only one premiership side on the way? The league is the test of consistency and managerial ability and KD was found wanting long before the appearance at Wembley. Had we gone out in Round 3 perhaps we could have done the proper thing and sacked him before he did more damage.

In conclusion I want us us to win and I want to be entertained (in that order). I don't want to win at any price - I'd hate to do it with a dirty team of cloggers, a string of red cards, a manager whining about refs ad infinitum, every refereeing decision resulting in a swarm of intimidating United players around the ref etc. etc. (We've seen some elements of those in recent champions but not too much I reckon). Most recent champions have been entertaining to some extent. None has been as boring as the team which succeeded Keegan.



-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

My final post on this thread - yes, I know "thank goodness" I can hear you all saying.

Jonno's final para actually captures my thoughts and feelings. We all want "success"; we all want the trophies that cement success for posterity. However, "how" we go about achieving that goal is also important for many of us.

An example of what I believe is a widely shared Toon ethos was the sound of 25-30,000 of the Toon Army at Wembley chanting in unison in response to our dire, negative approach in the '98 Cup Final v Arsenal - "Attack, attack, attack......". Frankly, we'd all had our fill of Dalglish and his cr@p.

A final thought, let's all try to remember this is a discussion forum. We seek to "debate" many subjects, but one thing I've noticed is that it is very difficult to actually change anyone's opinion on anything on here - it tends to be a forum for the statement of opinions. This topic is one where individuals clearly have a strongly entrenched opinion. We should imo seek to respect those personal opinions, even if philosophically disagreeing with them - openly tagging the view of others as "bollox" is insensitive and inconsiderate, and undeserving of this bss. Sermon over.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002


Buff the Tommy Burns Celtic side and the keegan side were at the same time and were very similar in outlook. In both cases they failed to win their leagues because of their results against the team that finished above them. We lost home and away to Man U, and Celtic- Rangers drew three and Rangers won one. When it came down to it, it wasn't about the rest of the season it was the 'cup finals' that the games between the top clubs became.

I recall Celtic being glorious that year but Rangers scored 11 more goals than them and conceded the same. In England Man U scored 6 more goals than us and conceded only two less. I feel it isn't right to suggest that NUFC/Celtic played more entertainly than Ranger/Man U as the goals thing shows otherwise. For me the difference was the ability to get the results in the two (or four) big games that mattered.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002


Reverend Clark, I did not bring the managers into this debate, if you check I advocated ditching them from the discussion, I will stand by my views that unless you have stability and a good base you can not entertain and win. Once you have achieved this then you can attract the flair players , one or two each close season as Man U. In my time on here I have used the words `crap` and `bollox` once prefacing each time with `talking`, Each to their own , three strikes and I am out is it?, seen a lot worse on here but frankly I care not a jot, that is the way I discussed football thro my life,how I managed, how I expected to be managed, sorry if I offended anyone else , does not appear to be a problem.used to be called `taakin straight`

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

Buff - no offence taken. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's - that was my point.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

I like this debate, goes to the heart of football support. I'm in the trenches with Buff and Sparxx, if Dalgish's team had won the cup then I would certainly not have bemoaned the lack of entertainment. Football is not soley about entertainment, if it was we would simply switch allegiance each season to whoever passed the ball about best. Some armchair fans have always done this and they probably supported us during the Keegan years and now support Arsenal. I love watching Newcastle play win or lose, rain or shine, in my experience the excitement comes from the anticipation of actually WINNING SOMETHING not the way we knock the ball about.

I don't go to be entertained otherwise I wouldn't go watch Newcastle. Equally I don't believe that winning is everything otherwise I DEFINITELY wouldn't go watch Newcastle. I go because it's the lads no matter how inept or brilliant they play.

It's interesting that Jonno refers to KK as "our most successful manager. I know why he says that but surely our most successful manager was Stan Seymour followed by Joe Joe Joe Harvey. 3 FA cups and a European trophy will live longer than losing a championship.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002


sorry I was someone who lost it with Dalglish in the autumn, and was horrified by him hanging on to his job through the cup run.

Going back to the start of this it is possible to pick out a 4-3 at Liverpool while Dalglish was the boss, and this could not have been further from the 'entertainers' than was possible. Dalglish picked a goalie, 9 defenders and a centre forward in an effort to stop them scoring and getting a result, at 3-0 down at half time, he had proved that you could take a glorious footballing side and destroy it on his view of 'winning' football.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002


I suspect that a lot on Newcastle fans are more romantics than realists. Grinding out 1:0 nil wins might provide a degree of clinical satisfaction, and trophies at the end would be some reward, but after waiting so long, it worries me that it might seem like fools gold. I can also completely understand Screacher's view that if you vest so much time, effort and money in watching the lads, you hanker for something more than just satisfaction. That doesn't mean to say loyalty is dependent on performance. We all know that it's not, but it also doesn't mean we should be mindlessly content with whatever's dished up.
Ultimately, it's a difficult argument, because most of us can't remember winning anything anyway, so don't have that benchmark to compare things too. I suspect it's a non- argument anyway, because if we truly believed that the team was good enough to win the Premiership and provide a match for Europe's best I'm sure we wouldn't be disappointed performance wise. It was bleedingly obvious Dalglish's approach wasn't going to lead anywhere much. It was always possible Keegan's might have.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

Just as a final word I notice from Talk of the Tyne that today marks 5 years since Keegan walked out/quit/honourably withdrew/got forced out/whatever.

And what 5 glorious years they have been, two FA cup finals, a semi, the Champions League, second in the PL, qualifying for the Inter Toto Cup, fighting relegation, Dyer, Bellamy, Barnes, Rush, Super Dessie Hamilton, Marcy, Maric, Fumaca.

Won nowt but boy oh boy the entertainment!

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002


..... as compared to the period prior to him resigning/quitting/being fired - ie. won nowt, but boy oh boy the entertainment!

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

If TSM had won the cup it would have been no justification of his managerial ability. I make the point earlier that we were hugely lucky in the draw and we were outclassed in the final.

Re "entertainment". What I want is something to shout about from the stands. During the TSM season the football was not just of a poor standard, we also rarely produced scoring chances. It was like watching paint still in the pot - not even drying. (That's why I'm a fan of Ketsbaia as he was one of very few players to relieve the tedium of it). Let's not be silly and say "what if he had won something though?". He was nowhere near winning anything, and took the club to the brink of relegation. The FA Cup run was a fluke (not our fault - you can only play the team you're drawn against. The moment we met class we were outplayed.

If the rules for qualification to the CL had been changed a few seasons earlier, KK would have taken us to the CL twice and he left behind a squad well enough placed to qualify a 3rd time. That's pretty successful in my book.

I don't just measure success in terms of silverware. There is too little of this to go around. A respectable league placing is a measure of success and if we finish 3rd or so, we'll have a lot more fun as fans than we will if we finish just avoiding relegation. To say that both result in nil silverware so there's no difference is obviously silly.

On this basis, I don't think St Joe was as successful as KK. St Joe was a brilliant manager with limited resources and working for directors with very limited ambitions. He did get promotion and the wonderful Fairs Cup triumph, but his league record cannot come close to KK (never out of top 6). You will recall that our qualification for the Fairs Cup was very odd. We qualified in 10th place in the league due to the byzantine rules of the competion. Teams above us in the league failed to qualify.

Those of you who measure success solely in terms of silverware must accept that we are equal with the Mackems over the past 10 years on this score. Who do think has had the most success over that period?



-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

I've kept out of this up to now because of my jaded viewpoint. It's a bit of a chinese water torture thing - the years and years of mediocrity have gradually eroded my view of how I want to see the game.

The fact that I've never been involved in football other than as a spectator, ie as a source of entertainment, might also be colouring my viewpoint but it doesn't mystify me that what I want to see when I watch a match is different now than it was 40 odd years ago.

Then I'd have settled for success at just about any cost, as long as I came away feeling entertained. When the entertainment was missing, well there was always the next game.

Gradually over the years though, the crap we've been forced to watch has gradually whittled away the hopes, and it's probably only the occasional glimpses of sunlight that have kept me going.

I can see a glint of sunlight at the moment, but past experience doesn't let me dwell on it or elaborate - I'll believe it when I see it.

If we can succeed now, and entertain, I'll be absolutely over the moon, but the end result of succeeding, however it's achieved, might be all the entertainment I need. Before, I'd have expected the entertainment to be the priority, not so sure about that these days.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002


I just want to point to something and say "there, look at that, we won that." Just once.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

I'm nowhere near as eloquent in arguement/debate as you lot, but I wanted to put my twopenneth worth in. I've supported Newcastle all my life. I started going to the matches as soon as I was allowed as a bairn (mid eighties). I've never seen us win anything and Keegan got us as close as we've been in my lifetime.

Nowadays I drive 400 miles each Saturday to go to home games and get to as many away games as The Makem will let me get to! All I know is when I'm driving back and we've lost I am gutted, but I also feel cheated if we've won and haven't entertained. If we have put in a passionate performance and lost, as in the infamous 4-3 match at Anfield, well that hurts, but I still feel proud of the lads and proud to wear my black and white shirt. So I guess if I can't have both, I'd settle for the entertainment. Mind you I want both !

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002


Something that comes to mind here is the current Liverpool side who are appalling to watch. A few weeks ago, they were 7000 under capacity for a league match despite being 11 points clear of Man Utd and looking like taking the title. I can't help thinking that, allwoing for the game being on SKY and the fact that they have more out-of-towners than Man Utd, that had they been guaranteed a spectacle, they'd have filled Anfield.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

I've already sold my soul. Best years of my supporting life were when KK was manager. Every game had me expecting to win ! I didn't enjoy the media setting us up to fall though and I've enjoyed the quiet season we've had this year in that regard, until recently.

I'd rather see us win games and more importantly win something meaningful. I suppose I've watched us play enough dreary football to be less concerned with how we achieved it. Once we win something though I'd want a return to the entertainers !!

Oh, if only I still owned my soul.....

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002


Moderation questions? read the FAQ